F1 TV audience dwindling.

[Stan the Bat]

TwentyFive said:

Cold said:

Is there any mileage (money) in showing the races in a cinema chain like they do with select operas/concerts etc?

I doubt it. I went to the cinema to watch the 2007 British Grand Prix. I can't remember why it was shown in the cinema but I do remember that there were only 6 people there of which 4 were my group. Based on those numbers, surely there is no way you are getting a return on investment?

When considering cost to travel to the cinema, buying your ticket and maybe some snacks it quickly becomes more expensive than a NOW TV pass which would offer a whole weekend of coverage rather than just the race itself.

The right approach in my eyes is the streaming service but sadly we are locked out in the UK for a while yet.

I went to Cheshire Oaks to see it at the cinema there and it was chock full.

[StevieBee]

Eric Mc said:

How is India and Turkey doing regarding F1. They were being heralded as where the action was going to be a few years ago.

I regularly fly in and out of Sabiha Gokcen (Istanbul) airport the flight path of which takes you over the circuit close to the airport. Of all the new circuits I always thought this to be one of the better ones - turn 8 particularly. Last time I flew over it, it appeared to be being used as a municipal storage area. I'll be heading that way on Monday so I'll report back if I catch a glimpse.

India is interesting. Have a very good friend who lives not far from the circuit. Has no interest in cars let alone F1 but when they ran the GP there, he got fully into it. His lad's school did a load of stuff around the sport and enthusiasm for F1 became a proper community thing. Those that didn't go to the race watched on 'communal' screens and knowledge about it grew very rapidly. He didn't manage to go but watched in one of these community screenings which oddly were running UK Sky coverage. I had to constantly text him info on "who this Senna was that the commentators kept mentioning" - amongst others. It's shame what happened because from what I've heard, there was great and growing enthusiasm there for the sport beyond anywhere else.

I've another mate in Baku - his apartment almost overlooks the circuit but couldn't give a toss. Says it's a pain in the bum because he can't get to his favourite bar to watch the football and he's not alone.

[Eric Mc]

Interesting.

The India story is rather salutary. An opportunity lost - or thrown away?

[rallycross]

Eric Mc said:

Interesting.

The India story is rather salutary. An opportunity lost - or thrown away?

An oppportunity lost as greed got in the way, from all sides in this case.
Shame as it was a decent circuit and had potential for a real audience.

[ceesvdelst]

I did hear that the track was built on quite well used travel routes for people locally, and this did not go down well with the local community.

[Deesee]

ceesvdelst said:

I did hear that the track was built on quite well used travel routes for people locally, and this did not go down well with the local community.

Could say that, this is turn 1

[TheDeuce]

Deesee said:

ceesvdelst said:

I did hear that the track was built on quite well used travel routes for people locally, and this did not go down well with the local community.

Could say that, this is turn 1

Look how close they all are together - you just know those cars are hardly moving and have spent at least 30 minutes within the frame of that photo!

Maybe they weren't entirely happy with their road being closed one weekend a year for a bunch of rich kids to drive at 200mph along it :/

[Deesee]

2019 figures as below

https://corp.formula1.com/formula-1-audience-conti...

[TheDeuce]

Those numbers are impressive. 9% yoy is a huge achievement - makes one wonder what Bernie was dragging his heels for all those years!

I'm sure the naysayers will be along soon enough to pick holes in the numbers and how they're calculated... Whatever, it's clear F1 attendance and viewership is in the ascendancy which is great for all fans

[thegreenhell]

TheDeuce said:

I'm sure the naysayers will be along soon enough to pick holes in the numbers and how they're calculated... Whatever, it's clear F1 attendance and viewership is in the ascendancy which is great for all fans

Hi.

What it shows is that fewer people watched more of the sport. The headline is that cumulative viewers were up, but unique viewers globally were down 3.9% from the previous year.

[rscott]

thegreenhell said:

TheDeuce said:

I'm sure the naysayers will be along soon enough to pick holes in the numbers and how they're calculated... Whatever, it's clear F1 attendance and viewership is in the ascendancy which is great for all fans

Hi.

What it shows is that fewer people watched more of the sport. The headline is that cumulative viewers were up, but unique viewers globally were down 3.9% from the previous year.

I'd say the massive increases in social media followers is something many F1 sponsors will appreciate though.

[TheDeuce]

thegreenhell said:

TheDeuce said:

I'm sure the naysayers will be along soon enough to pick holes in the numbers and how they're calculated... Whatever, it's clear F1 attendance and viewership is in the ascendancy which is great for all fans

Hi.

What it shows is that fewer people watched more of the sport. The headline is that cumulative viewers were up, but unique viewers globally were down 3.9% from the previous year.

I would assume that the areas where there has been a decline are largely down to losing FTA and getting people through the paywall to watch. The fact the numbers stay broadly stable overall suggests that a lot of new viewers are being attracted to displace the number which are lost in areas where the sport is no longer FTA. The numbers given for some regions increase in viewers would back that up.

Obviously it's an article on the official F1 site so they're going to present the numbers in the best light possible - but I expect Liberty are pretty happy with the numbers, and it bodes well for the future that those that do watch, are watching more than previously. It's good that people are putting in the viewer hours on a regular basis as those people become a driving force in introducing others to the sport.

The appeal of the sport looks to be growing, in-spite of paywalls. Imo that is impressive and encouraging.

[Eric Mc]

You are easilly convinced - perhaps you WANT to be convinced.

Adding more races to the calendar provides more events to watch - so will drag the number of viewers up.

In era when there were normally 16 races per season, the viewing figures were mightilly impressive considering.

Adding new races and new countries gives a false impression as to how well the sport is really doing.

Is having maybe 1 million new Azerbaijanis watching sufficient compensation for losing 5 million Brits?

[TheDeuce]

Eric Mc said:

You are easilly convinced - perhaps you WANT to be convinced.

Adding more races to the calendar provides more events to watch - so will drag the number of viewers up.

In era when there were normally 16 races per season, the viewing figures were mightilly impressive considering.

Adding new races and new countries gives a false impression as to how well the sport is really doing.

Is having maybe 1 million new Azerbaijanis watching sufficient compensation for losing 5 million Brits?

No. But many more millions in the USA and other territories they're focusing on certainly is.

And why on earth is expanding in to new territories not a good thing? If those territories want F1, if they get on board and watch then clearly that is a sign of success for the sport. Adding new races and countries isn't giving a false impression at all, it's just evidence of an appetite for F1. Those new viewers and countries aren't false, they exist and are tuning in..

Granted the situation for us in the UK is pretty dire, people have largely been priced out. But globally, F1 is in rude health and is part way through what has so far been a positive set of changes from the new owners.

[Derek Smith]

I went to Mercedes-Benz World for one race last season in their little cinema. There was something on at Brooklands and so I wandered over at lunchtime - it was a GP in Europe.

The place was either half full or half empty, depending on your point of view. Oddly, I was at M-B World for the British GP one year when it was FTA and there was standing room only for those who got their late. This was in one of the large rooms and not the purpose built cinema. There were probably the same number of seats.

I don't know what can be read into this, but it seemed odd. I got the the cinema over half an hour before the start to secure my place. Others did as well and we formed a bit of an embarrassed group.

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

TheDeuce said:

Eric Mc said:

You are easilly convinced - perhaps you WANT to be convinced.

Adding more races to the calendar provides more events to watch - so will drag the number of viewers up.

In era when there were normally 16 races per season, the viewing figures were mightilly impressive considering.

Adding new races and new countries gives a false impression as to how well the sport is really doing.

Is having maybe 1 million new Azerbaijanis watching sufficient compensation for losing 5 million Brits?

No. But many more millions in the USA and other territories they're focusing on certainly is.

And why on earth is expanding in to new territories not a good thing? If those territories want F1, if they get on board and watch then clearly that is a sign of success for the sport. Adding new races and countries isn't giving a false impression at all, it's just evidence of an appetite for F1. Those new viewers and countries aren't false, they exist and are tuning in..

Granted the situation for us in the UK is pretty dire, people have largely been priced out. But globally, F1 is in rude health and is part way through what has so far been a positive set of changes from the new owners.

Most businesses would consider like for like growth to be a more accurate measure of assessing demand, so Eric has a point.

Adding new business on one end a bit faster than its falling off the other isn’t necessarily a long term strategy.

Time will tell but remember India, Turkey, Korea............

[Eric Mc]

You've put it better than I did - but that was my point.

No point building an extension to a bridge at one end when the the other and older end of the bridge (and part of the DNA of the structure) is allowed to wither and rot away.

[Tyre Smoke]

Remember all the tooing and froing over whether the British GP would survive?

Are we all guilty of a bit of rose tinted specs here? Perhaps Liberty don't care about our little island of viewers or GP as much as we do. We think it's massively important, but globally, is it? Is there more money in getting the rest of the world watching, rather than 'pandering' to our demands for FTA live GP?

[anonymous-user]

Tyre Smoke said:

Remember all the tooing and froing over whether the British GP would survive?

Are we all guilty of a bit of rose tinted specs here? Perhaps Liberty don't care about our little island of viewers or GP as much as we do. We think it's massively important, but globally, is it? Is there more money in getting the rest of the world watching, rather than 'pandering' to our demands for FTA live GP?

You may well be right but that just emphasises the point that you can’t grow the business indefinitely by just adding races on if you’re losing them at the other end. Not to mention that the British has the biggest attendance of all, about 65% above the average, rather than keep looking for new places, building tracks and then abandoning them, maybe they’d be better off trying to pin down just why the British is so well supported and try to engender that feeling everywhere.

I know there’s history and Hamilton involved here but why is there either? We all know the answer to that question and neither will be replicated easily by today’s offering, which is why most of the ‘new’ GPs are far from secure.

[TheDeuce]

Tyre Smoke said:

Remember all the tooing and froing over whether the British GP would survive?

Are we all guilty of a bit of rose tinted specs here? Perhaps Liberty don't care about our little island of viewers or GP as much as we do. We think it's massively important, but globally, is it? Is there more money in getting the rest of the world watching, rather than 'pandering' to our demands for FTA live GP?

Liberty have their hands tied on the UK front for now - not much they can do regardless of how highly they value to UK audience.

And yes, there are new territories that it makes sense they focus on, they clearly want F1 to grow out in all directions. To that end, it appears that new territories are 'conquered' with affordable TV rights to get it on to FTA national TV. In the end they want people to use their own F1TV platform.

So essentially establish, then monetise - nothing new in that model. The F1TV price in USA is $100 a year (£75) which is affordable for most fans I guess. As they start to monetise each territory, then inevitably less people will watch, but no reason to think the drop-off rate would be anything like as extreme as in the UK.

Eric Mc said:

You've put it better than I did - but that was my point.

No point building an extension to a bridge at one end when the the other and older end of the bridge (and part of the DNA of the structure) is allowed to wither and rot away.

I agree with that sentiment, but I don't see that is what is happening here. They are monetising the sport, increasingly directly (which makes sense as they can ultimately sell access at a lower price to the end user), so of course the more they do that, the less people are able to watch for free, and the viewership in each monetised territory will decrease somewhat. Yet the overall viewership has remained stable in spite of this, so I would say they are showing a good level of control over the conversion of each new territory and are ensuring the sports footprint grows at a pace sufficient to offset the people that drop out because it's not free.

I don't see it as neglecting old territories to go and focus on new ones, it's just a case of putting the focus on expansion, whilst also supporting already established territories to ensure the sport remains healthy in those. Obviously that went wrong in the UK due to the Sky deal, which they can't do anything about now anyway.

What part(s) of the sport or world do you see them neglecting? I'm aware some destination have failed and the sport has not achieved a strong lasting foothold... But that's going to happen sometimes. It doesn't mean the business model is itself bad.